Nicholas Crichton sits behind his desk in an unassuming grey office at Wells Street family proceedings court in central London. The room is enlivened by photographs of his smiling grandchildren – appropriate images, perhaps, for a man who has spent his adult life working to improve the future of vulnerable children (and parents) whose lives are at the mercy of the family courts.

On top of a cupboard, barely visible behind several packets of dog food, is a box labelled "awards". Crichton has won a number of accolades in recognition of his efforts setting up the UK's first family drug and alcohol court (FDAC).

Since 2009, the court, the only one of its kind, has heard around 150 cases where parents who are seriously addicted to drugs or alcohol are in danger of having their children taken into care. Around two-thirds of care cases in England and Wales involve parental addiction, but Crichton says it is nearer 80% in inner London. Usually, parents are told to get themselves clean or lose their children, he explains, "but most of these people are in far too much of a mess to do this by themselves".

"To be successful, you have to address simultaneously the addiction and the problems that trigger it, like housing, debt and domestic violence," says Crichton. He adds that of all the cases heard by the court, in "only one or two has domestic violence not been a significant issue".

FDAC families see the same judge – either Crichton or district judge Kenneth Grant – every fortnight. "Continuity is absolutely crucial," Crichton says. He likens the process to WeightWatchers, "with the judge as the scales".

The success of the courtspeaks for itself. An independent evaluation by Brunel university found that nearly half of FDAC mothers were no longer misusing drugs or alcohol by the time of the final court order (as against 39% in regular family courts), and 36% of FDAC fathers were clean compared with none in the comparison group. Crucially, nearly twice as many FDAC mothers were reunited with their children as in a family court. By addressing the families' needs and keeping children out of care, the Brunel report concluded that FDAC saves the taxpayer money. Yet its future is uncertain as Whitehall funding for the three-year pilot runs out in March.

Court costs

The court costs £500,000 a year – the same as the cost to the taxpayer of just one dysfunctional family, Crichton points outs. "When I was a solicitor, I sat in a court corridor with a woman who was having her seventh and eighth babies (twins) taken away. Her first child was in borstal – five times the cost of Eton; her second in a detention centre – four times Eton; her third and fourth were being adopted and her fifth and sixth in care – with all the attendant costs," he recalls. "Then there were the NHS costs of her poor health due to addiction, police costs for constantly attending domestic violence incidents, social services, court time, legal aid and local authority legal bills (and an awful lot of human misery). We worked out she alone was costing the taxpayer half a million quid – and that was 30 years ago!

"I'm not starry eyed, we still have more families not making it than making it, but we are giving them the best chance," he says. "And there have been unexpected benefits. Because we make the parents work so intensively [towards change], if they cannot do it, we are picking that up earlier, and finding alternative permanent solutions for the children more quickly. And we have fewer contested cases. Parents trust the [FDAC] team so some who don't make it come to understand why they haven't made it and don't fight all the way". This makes the process quicker, cheaper and less painful for the child.

"We had one young mother, 19 or 20 and heavily addicted to drugs. About eight to 10 weeks in, when her baby was three months old, she asked to speak in court. She said, 'I have learned so much from [the FDAC team] and one of the things I have learned is that my recovery will take at least two years and my baby cannot wait that long.' She gave her baby up for adoption – willingly. My heart still breaks for her but maybe she will get pregnant again and she will be in a better place for that child."

The court has around six pre-birth cases. "If you can work with the mother before the baby is born, you get ahead of the game. I believe the FDAC belongs in the maternity wards, the antenatal classes – even the sixth form! At the moment, we only get the most intractable cases," says Crichton.

The FDAC is not Crichton's first intervention in the care system. He was involved some 40 years ago in getting parents involved in court cases affecting their children. "Incredibly, when I started as a solicitor, parents were not even allowed into court," he says.

Frustrating

Crichton sits in the FDAC only one day a fortnight – alternating with Grant. The rest of the time he has to sit in regular family courts. "It is terribly frustrating," he admits. "Solicitors say, 'please, judge, this is an FDAC case' but their clients live in the wrong borough." Only families from the London boroughs of Camden, Islington, Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham – which part-fund the court – can be referred to the FDAC.

Crichton would like to see the model rolled out more widely in England. He is talking to the Welsh assembly about setting up an FDAC in Cardiff and will visit Belfast and Melbourne, Australia, later this year to discuss introducing services there. There is clearly a need: the latest figures for England show that more children are in care than ever before.

"Since the riots [in England last summer], there has been much talk about working with the 120,000 most dysfunctional families – and £200m set aside to do it. Not all of those will be addicted, but many will and these are the families we are dealing with here," he says. "It is really about what kind of society we want – and David Cameron wants: one that just takes children into care quickly or one that addresses the core problem and helps families stay together and function, and not produce a whole stream more children who will suffer and be a burden to the state."

So why the dog food in the office?

He explains that he shares the family dogs with his ex-wife and when they are with him, he sometimes brings them into the office.

"If we have an adoption, I ask the lawyer if the child likes dogs. If (s)he does, I hide them under my desk in court and when the child comes up at the end of the proceedings," (Crichton does a hey presto gesture), "there are the dogs! They love it."